Bombs Over Tehran

I am lost, what are those crappy airplanes in the video and what do they have to do with any realistic modern war?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
See how long it is until the Iranian people revolt. No invasion necessary.

The problem is that any attack, even if it is directed at the Government and Military of Iran, will be perceived by many Iranian Citizens as an attack on all of Iran. It may cause the Iranian people to rally around their government in a show of nationalism.

Can we attack Iran, Yes. Should we attack Iran, that's the bigger question. Iran's government will fall eventually on it's own, and an attack may very well slow down that fall rather than speed it up. I have my doubts that Iranians will rise up against their government while all of Iran is under air attack. We need to support the opposition strongly when if this happens. History tends to show that "the people", rally around their government, even if they don't like it, in times of national crisis.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by JIMC5499
See how long it is until the Iranian people revolt. No invasion necessary.

The problem is that any attack, even if it is directed at the Government and Military of Iran, will be perceived by many Iranian Citizens as an attack on all of Iran. It may cause the Iranian people to rally around their government in a show of nationalism.

Plus Iran happens to be THE pillar of Shia Islam. Sorta like attacking the Vatican.

I really look forward to this lesson in assymetric warfare. Should be hilarious to watch. And to all the people who think the sunburn missle is a joke, lol if even half of them work, the straits of hormuz is gone. Donzo. I also look forward to seeing if the S-300 and S-400 missile system do what they say they do. So either American warfare companies go bankrupt after being shown up by a 5$ million dollar missle, or Russian warfare companies go bankrupt when shown not to do as advertised. Enjoy 10$ gas in the Truck, yeah buddy. Good luck surviving that as a country.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Fitch303
The West would start with a massive missile attack taking out Irans military infrastructure (radar network, surface to air missiles, communications, air fields). at the same time the west would destroy Irans Navy which does not have a blue water fleet, It's more of a regional navy at best. Anyone with knowledge on the subject would realize Irans military doesn't really have a chance to survive ....

The troops of Iran will fight more fanatically than the west an will cause many deaths assuming a ground invasion takes place. All this is assuming other powers do not back Iran btw. With that said I have a really bad feeling about this (coming from a warhawk).

The US/West are aware of this scenario. Why invade? Just dismantle the country using stand off weapon systems. Then when the dust settles let the Iranians decide for themselves. No need for boots on the ground to destroy a country.**Totally agree.I dont know Why everyone thinks we would send occupation forces when we could utilize our air power and MAYBE some special forces.And thats if we get involved.

The initial invasion and the destriction of the Irainian military by the US, UK and Israeli forces would be a cakewalk. Dispite what some people say here about the capabilities of the Iranian military, it wouldn't be too dificult. The Iranian command and control has never fully recovered from the Islamic Revolution which resulted in many high officials and technicians leaving the country. The Iraq war futher damgaged military capabilities and they still haven't recovered. Where Iran may strive is in the marshes, however, these areas obviously would not likely be entered by an occupational force and the Iranian military can't exactly set up pockets of risistance in areas which are rather isolated inbetween Iraq and conventional Iran.

The thing that will be most difficult, infact what I would call nearly impossible would be America engaging in a long and sustained occupation aimed at removing the underlying factors of instability for the occupation, which would be things such as Islamic resistance, secular resistance and civil unrest. In fact with the US military stretched out in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli military unlikely to look for an occupation (as America wouldn't allow it seeing it would destroy any legitimacy of the occupation in the Middle East) and the UK's military has taken susbtantial cutbacks.

Occupation would equate to failure

Originally posted by Drezden
So help me understand please.. there are bombs over Iran right now? Someone is bombing Iran. That is what your thread title implies.. but I couldn't find anything about that in the post. Please help me understand.

reply to post by Toolatetotalk


No there are not actually 'Bombs Over Tehran'. The Thread title is an allusion to 'Bombs Over Baghdad', a song by Outkast from some years ago.

As pointed out you would quickly realise by reading this thread that there is currently no attack on Iran and all discussion is theoretical (hence me not posing this in breaking news).

Furthermore, even the slightest bit of research on the internet, TV, looking out your window, would confirm all these facts.

Jensy

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by jensy

 

No-one's mentioning carriers because Iran has the SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-shipping missile, or to give its correct name the Raduga P-270 Moskrit.

Mach 3 high speed carrier killer.

Cosmic...

edit on 3-11-2011 by Cosmic4life because: (no reason given)

It's unimpressive and not proven not to mention it's effective range of 75 miles is not going to reach any carrier.

I've thought about this for a bit tonight and I can't get it out of my head that the real military asset will be Iraq. This will boil down to a religious issue between old blood. I think a strategic strike that is focused on the sites is key. Than leaving the area for them to rebuild and repair. This opens them up for Iraq or the Kurds to lay claim to territory.

Than again I can see how the US might actually talk one of the two countries to support a strike. Not sure why but it seems logical step. Russia and China will not object as Iran has nothing to offer them anymore. Having the Western States eliminate a possible Nuclear threat helps them out, yet they don't look like the bad guys.

Just some random thoughts

Originally posted by Toolatetotalk

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by jensy

 

No-one's mentioning carriers because Iran has the SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-shipping missile, or to give its correct name the Raduga P-270 Moskrit.

Mach 3 high speed carrier killer.

Cosmic...

edit on 3-11-2011 by Cosmic4life because: (no reason given)

It's unimpressive and not proven not to mention it's effective range of 75 miles is not going to reach any carrier.

Yes, because we still live in the age of castle warfare where archers cannot leave the confines of the castle walls to increase their range

And if it's so "unimpressive" then why did the Soviets load them onto their battleships? Why are/were they deployed by many countries? It's not like they just welded some pieces of metal together, labelled it a "carrier-killer" and called it a night. They might of tested it once or twice to prove its capabilities, wouldn't you think so?

I don't think it's been mentioned, but Iran's navy have three russian built subs. The Russian built Kilo submarines are considered among the quietest diesel submarines in the world. They could be a real problem to any naval assets including us/uk hunter killer subs operating in the area. I assume the Kilo's are still operational

p00hbear

Neither Israel nor the US have the political good will to burn to make an attack on Iran worthwhile - Iran hasn't made any overt threats or moves to attack any of its neighbours, and even the IAEA doesn't fully support the US position on Irans supposed nuclear weapons program (yes, the IAEA are concerned, but they aren't out and out accusing Iran of making weapons).

There just isn't the ability there to justify an attack.

Amusing how nobody discusses how they would survive living in a 10$ gas world. Which would mean in Europe it would be 20$ a gallon. The Straights of Hormuz would be shut down, and it's well within a 75 mile barrier, for the sunburn deniers. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Neither Israel nor the US have the political good will to burn to make an attack on Iran worthwhile - Iran hasn't made any overt threats or moves to attack any of its neighbours, and even the IAEA doesn't fully support the US position on Irans supposed nuclear weapons program (yes, the IAEA are concerned, but they aren't out and out accusing Iran of making weapons).

There just isn't the ability there to justify an attack.

Where was the justification to attack Iraq?

The UN did not authorize the Iraq occupation because there was no reasonable justification. This made it a War of Aggression (the supreme warcrime, by the way).

The "coalition of the willing" justified the invasion on their own terms by fabricating intelligence. It was the CIA-paid Iraqi informant "Curveball" who made the Iraqi threat to US claims; this intel was considered a farce by even his own intel handlers. The decision came from the top, and the orders from the top were for the CIA to justify the impending invasion by any means.

Why do you think the US just fabricated a story about the grave threat posed by the disgruntled Iranian-born car salesman/Al Quds commander's second cousin blah blah blah. No one believes these lies, yet the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs is hell-bent on punishing Iran in response for these unproven allegations.

reply to post by pavil

The OP cites the US, Great Britain, and Israel as the countries who might be preparing to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. More than likely, the initial attack will be a surgical strike conducted by Israel, not an outright invasion as some posters here are suggesting. Involvement by Great Britain and the US depends on the Iranian response. If there is some type of counter attack by Iran, then you will definitely see both other countries get involved. And, the F117 Nighthawk, which is not retired, will be the primary attack aircraft used by the US in the first 2 or 3 days so that they can take out SAM, and communication sites.

Originally posted by FPB214
You didn't mention Green Beret's?

What? You're kidding me!!

The US is going to send a bunch of HATS into combat against Iran???

Originally posted by taderhold
And, the F117 Nighthawk, which is not retired, will be the primary attack aircraft used by the US in the first 2 or 3 days so that they can take out SAM, and communication sites.

Cite your source.

Everything I read is that the last F117 was retired to Tonopah on 11 August 2008.That is where they all are, with their wings removed. They aren't training new pilots since 2006.

They are basically mothballed, not in active service.

reply to post by pavil
You are correct. They are "officially" retired, however, they are really in temporary storage. But the F117, according to a retired military friend of mine, is capable of being put back in service within 30 days That is what I meant by stating it is not retired.
Since this was all theoretical, I used the F117 as it was used in Iraq. Sorry for the confusion. I could have made myself clearer initially.

reply to post by taderhold


I can believe that, but I had heard that the Nighthawk was harder to fly than the typical jet, I don't know if we have the trained pilots for that platform.

reply to post by jerico65


Yea you didn't know they would send beret's?

Sorry, Army SF.